[SQL] Database consistency after a power shortage

My question is regarding a potential situation: I have a program that inserts values on 3 tables linked to each other. My program is used in a POS. In this specific case, the program has to update the tables "header_invoice", "detail_invoice" and "payments_x_header_invoice". In a normal operation

Re: [SQL] select result into string's array

Dmitriy Igrishin wrote: > Hello. > > You should use an array constructor: > > DECLARE > m_array text[]; > [..] > BEGIN > FOR m_array IN SELECT ARRAY[col_1, col_2, col_N] FROM my_table LOOP > [..] > END LOOP; > > Regards, > Igrishin Dm

[SQL] select result into string's array

SELECT rows/ Is it possible do this?? May I choose another way? Thanks in advance Alberto, -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql

[SQL] Encrypt data type LO

share this with me. Regards.   Ing. Carlos Alberto Piña Uribe Consultoría y Desarrollo KEBIR Infraestructura Tecnológica [EMAIL PROTECTED]  

[SQL]

HI, i have a following function., but not work. CREATE or replace FUNCTION get_nombre(numeric,numeric,text) RETURNS setof cumaalu AS ' SELECT cunomalu,cuappalu,cuapmalu FROM cumaalu WHERE siempalu = $1 and cusesalu = $2 and curutalu = $3; ' LANGUAGE SQL; the error say Postgr

[SQL] FUNCTIONS PROBLEM

Hi. i have a function and i need to return 4 fields but not work, any idea , please thank mario ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Re: [SQL] [HACKERS] why is postgres estimating so badly?

> > AND part.name LIKE '%green%' > > It's difficult for the planner to produce a decent estimate for the > selectivity of an unanchored LIKE clause, since there are no statistics > it can use for the purpose. We recently changed FIXED_CHAR_SEL in > src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c from 0.04 to

[SQL] why is postgres estimating so badly?

I have a query and estimations and results don´t look similar, here is explain analyze:    NOTICE:  QUERY PLAN:   Sort  (cost=12443.90..12443.90 rows=1 width=93) (actual time=505331.94..505332.67 rows=175 loops=1)  ->  Aggregate  (cost=12443.88..12443.89 rows=1 width=93) (actual time=472520.

Re: [SQL] [HACKERS] please help on query

- Original Message - From: "Masaru Sugawara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [SQL] [HACKERS] please help on query > > Sorry,

Re: [SQL] [HACKERS] please help on query

- Original Message - From: "Masaru Sugawara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [SQL] [HACKERS] please help on query This is the output:

Re: [SQL] [HACKERS] please help on query

erkey might be excessive. Any other idea? Thanks And Regards - Original Message - From: "Jakub Ouhrabka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Manfred Koizar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [SQL] [HACKERS] please help on query

> Hash (cost=1.31..1.31 rows=1 width=4) -> Seq Scan on nation (cost=0.00..1.31 rows=1 width=4) -> Seq Scan on lineitem (cost=0.00..08.25 rows=6001225 width=0) where might be my mistake Thanks and regards - Original Message - F

Re: [SQL] [HACKERS] please help on query

> The cost is now only 1141741215.35 compared to 2777810917708.17 > before; this is an improvement factor of more than 2000. So what's > your problem? ;-) > > Servus > Manfred > In fact planner is estimating incredibly badly, it took only 833msecs now runs perfectly I'm going to keep on ask